N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

1. Heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Bhagabati, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. The petitioner was initially appointed as Constable (GD) in C.R.P.F. and he was discharged from service by office order dated 28.08.2004 issued by the Commandant 53rd Bn. C.R.P.F. which has been challenged in the present writ petition.

2. Brief facts of the case as may be relevant for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows.

3. The petitioner states that his father-in-law aged about 72 years at the relevant time, was suffering from a chronic ailment relating to Intestine Tumor and had been undergoing treatment in Shushila Jaswant Hospital at Meerut for along time. As there was no responsible person to look after his ailing father-in-law, the petitioner had applied for grant of 60 days' earned leave to attend to his ailing father-in-law which, however, was not granted and instead, the authorities granted 15 days' casual leave. Thereafter, he again sought for 30 days' earned leave which was also not accepted by the authorities, instead, he was given 1 day's out station leave. The petitioner after over staying for 4 days reported to the Bn. Head Quarter at Mathura. As the condition of the ailing father-in-law did not improve, he again requested the authorities for sanctioning leave. Instead of sanctioning leave, the authorities directed the petitioner to proceed to Shillong where the Battalion was located and the authorities issued movement order and railway warrant to proceed to Shillong. It seems that the petitioner instead of proceeding to Shillong, again applied for leave which was not granted. According to the petitioner, he had applied for sanction of 30 days' leave and made the request to the authorities over telephone which was allowed and accordingly, the petitioner proceeded on leave to attend to his ailing father-in-law who was operated on 17.06.2004 at the aforesaid Hospital at Meerut Thereafter, the petitioner joined the Battalion on 10.07.2004 and submitted the medical documents and applied for regularizing his leave which he had taken.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 23.08.2004 the Commandant called the petitioner in his orderly room and without any reason or assigning any reason, and also without issuing any show cause notice, awarded punishment of confinement of the petitioner in line for 15 days w.e.f. 23.08.2004 to 06.09.2004. The said punishment was duly recorded in punishment register of 53rd Bn. of the Headquarter. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of oppressive atmosphere created by the superior authorities by not granting leave as well as by keeping the petitioner in confinement, he submitted an application on 26.08.2004 seeking discharge from service. However, the Officer Commandant, D/53 Bn., C.R.R.F. informed him stating that his application for discharge submitted on 26.08.2004 was not written in proper official language and without showing any proper reasons, and accordingly, the said application was not accepted. According to the petitioner, he was given an interview by the DIGP, C.R.P.F., Guwahati who had happened to be Mathura at the relevant time on 28.08.2004, who orally assured him that he would reconsider the punishment of confinement awarded to the petitioner and directed the respondent No. 4, i.e. Commandant 53rd Bn. C.R.P.F. to obtain proper application from the petitioner to enable him to look into the same.

5. Petitioner states that on 28.08.2004, he was called by the respondent No. 4 in his chamber alone and said that he would reconsider the punishment and as certain formalities had to be completed, he asked the petitioner to sign on two blank papers. The petitioner under impression that his case would be favourably considered gave two blank papers with signatures. However, later on, on the same day, i.e. on 28.08.2004, the